You are here

D.P.K. Pillay replies: ‘Human Security’ as a concept identifies the individual citizen instead of the State as the appropriate referent for security. The idea of ‘human security’ contends that the people of a country that has a well-equipped and strong military are not necessarily “secure” in the true sense. Protecting citizens from attacks from other countries continues to be an important facet in the security calculus, but it should not be the only one.

Rajeesh Kumar replies: India's concern over state-sponsored terrorism is not linked to the issue of human rights as such. Since India outrightly rejects any third party intervention in its conflict with any state, seeking cooperation or dialogue with or mediation by the Nordic countries is not in order. In case of inter-state disputes impinging on internal security issues that necessitate action by Indian security agencies, there is often the instance of external agencies disturbing peace and security within India.

Though the original focus of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was primarily economic cooperation, the adoption of the ASEAN charter in November 2007 officially included cooperation on human rights. This article examines three hypotheses to determine the causes of cooperation problems: regime type, non-interference policy, and absence of an enforcement mechanism in the ASEAN charter.

The Indian Army’s Doctrine for Sub Conventional Operations does an admirable job in balancing human rights protection with operational demands. However, there is a degree of dissonance in the approach to human rights brought about by the perspective that protecting human rights is a means to an end.

A multilateral framework of regional cooperation, human rights based strategy, addressing the root causes and a higher priority for the issue in foreign policy are necessary to comprehensively deal with the challenge of human trafficking.

Ali Ahmed replies: The military is committed to following national policy on human rights as defined in the Human Rights Act of 1993. It is a mistaken impression that national security would tend to suffer in any form were the military to affirm its human rights commitments. On the contrary, a military that is in sync with societal culture and national policy is one that is more combat effective. Human rights would not so much come into play in conventional war as would humanitarian law. The military is cognisant of the humanitarian laws, in particular the 1960 Geneva Conventions Act. In so far as subconventional conflict, especially counter insurgency is concerned, adherence to human rights is a force multiplier. It reduces alienation and discredits insurgent propaganda. This enables easier access to intelligence from the people and thereby intelligence based operations. This cycle leads to a lesser imposition on human rights. Therefore, national security is served by adherence to human rights commitments.